Why in the world does Glenn Beck think Net Neutrality is taking away freedoms?
Beck said that Net Neutrality is an Obama Marxist plot to steal "freedoms" and going against this is will protect your internet freedoms.
Not only he has this completely backwards, Net Neutrality is to protect the users of the internet. It is about allowing an equal platform, an equal audience to everybody on the Internet no matter what your opinion is = FREE SPEECH!
Going against this nothing more than public utility regulation for broadband. If they get that authority, your online experience will be more like dealing with the water company or the electric company and less like using the Internet. Organizations such as the FCC and Broadband Companies do not and should not have authority to regulate the Internet. Getting rid of net neutrality is basically the online version of the PATRIOT ACT.
Is Beck ignorant of this or paid off to say crap like this.
Here's a transcript from Fox News for those who won't believe me:
or watch the Glenn Beck 4/5/2010 episode.
How_I_Know: This has nothing to do with Obama you conservative douche, Glenn Beck threw his name in their just to make his retarded point. Shut the F*CK up!
PS I don't care about Obama I and hate idiots like you and Beck.
- Anonymous10 years agoBest answer
Any guesses that half of the answers you get will be the ever present childish name calling and not answer your question at all?
But you should be careful about what you ask for, just think if all of the anti-Bush or pro-Obama sites are FORCED to allow equal time (or space) to dissenting points of view, or hey what about "Republican sex offenders" websites, that would be hilarious if they were forced to list all of the democrats that have committed sex crimes also, take a little wind out of their sails do you think.
As the internet is now don't people have an equal voice? Do you honestly believe that government regulation of the internet will increase free speech, no it will not, it will limit it and that is what Beck is railing against.
- 4 years ago
While you may be correct in how you are describing the "net neutrality" act, the fact remains that the government really has no business being involved with it. It's the old foot in the door argument. If you allow even one infringement on the system that allows citizens to speak freely then it is far easier to get the next one. And the next one. And so on. While what you are saying is possibly (even probably) correct and not the current goal, the basic premise of the foot in the door remains sound. Besides, it is the other provisions within the bill that are controversial. For instance it would allow the president to seize control of the internet during times of national emergency - beats me how they could accomplish that but there it is. And of course that "emergency" is defined by the president. Can you say despotism? Think of it this way, would you like to have allowed Bush the authority to stick his nose into the internet? In any fashion? I suspect that the answer to that is not only "no" but "hades no" to a great many people. And they would be correct. The possibilities for abuse from this act are simply too large to ignore and will affect to many law abiding citizens and should not be in the hand of ANY politician from any party. So are they using hyperbole to drum up opposition. Sure. Are they incorrect in how they are claiming the bill as written could have an affect? Possibly, at least in the short term. But they are commentators - not newsmen. And just like politicians, they are under no obligation to report the entire truth. In fact, just like the rest of the main stream media - who do claim to be newsmen - they tell the truth from their perspective. These two are simply painting a picture of what the future could look like if this bill passes. And unfortunately it isn't a pretty one.
- Just JessLv 710 years ago
The smart money is on "paid to say crap like this".
Just because he claims to be a member of my political party, it doesn't mean every libertarian agrees with him on everything. Glenn Beck speaks for Glenn Beck. Just saying it in advance.
The problem with net neutrality has existed since AT&T first figured out they could make it illegal to own long strips of copper without renting them from AT&T for millions of dollars, before most of the people reading this were even born, and nothing's changed since then. That wasn't any of the silly "capitalist vs socialist" garbage that's popular these days. That was a private entity working WITH the government to bend you over, and everything's built on top of it.
Both telecoms and governments have been beat at their own game before, but it is their game and the smart money is to beat them the way we beat the recording industry.
No one listens to CDs anymore; there's better ways to get music. All we need to do is start using better ways to get internet.
I'm not saying don't pay for it. I am saying that when you pay for it, take ownership. Once upon a time, when you paid for something, it was yours. You weren't renting it. You decided what you did with it. Just do that with your internet. Once you've bought a router and made a bridge, that part of the chain is yours.
Until you do that, every policy is bad. The government controlling the internet is bad. Phone and cable companies controlling the internet is bad. Anyone controlling the internet you paid for that isn't you is bad. Everyone's rights end where your nose begins, and the one side that doesn't exist on either side of the "net neutrality" debate, is yours.
Or you try to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, which people have which fingers in which pie, until you just give up and flip a coin on the issue as it's presented to you.
- kathy_is_a_nurseLv 710 years ago
"...It is about allowing an equal platform, an equal audience to everybody on the Internet no matter what your opinion is = FREE SPEECH!..."
ANYONE has access to an equal platform on the Internet right now. You can put up a website with little (or no) knowledge and say just about anything you want. Why does the government need to get involved? Who is underserved now? Once the government start controlling the Internet then they can start restricting those whom they disagree with.
Don't be naive. This is an epic bad idea!
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Still QuazeeLv 610 years ago
Well, pal, seems you have the liberal tendency to think the 'feel good title' of something is what it "really means", which is why our elected, posturing fools in DC pass so much crap posing as 'law'. See, you have to get past the lovely title and see what's in the meat of the thing. Like this 'neutrality' BS, seems Beck's onto what the philosophy of the 'boys behind it all' are into: McChesney, in his own words: "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."
Also: "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."
See how not completely reading your own link kinda trips one up now and then?
Hello? Don'tcha think we ALREADY have the 'free speech thing' going on?
- Anonymous10 years ago
You obviously don't understand what net neutrality is. Net neutrality would be like someone broadcasting their opinion over a loudspeaker so loud that nobody could hear anything else, and there would be no way to shut them up even at 2:00 in the morning.
- 10 years ago
Glenn Beck gets his viewers by creating panic and rage. So he will say whatever he can to get people watching. He must have noticed that his numbers were dropping a bit, so he had to throw out another log for the fire.
And if you would like to imagine it, my husband is a history professor. There is nothing funnier or more entertaining than watching him watch Glenn Beck "discuss" history and events in history. One of these times, my husband is going to either explode or ruin our television! But is it ever a hoot!!
- 10 years ago
Its not because he wants the people to pay more, but it is because our system has functioned a certain way and done VERY well.... Now obama wants to change it into a completely different system and remove our RIGHTS totally. Obama is removing our rights comepletly and totally, one right at a time.
- cfc9elcLv 410 years ago
If you are interested in reading why proponents of free markets and limited government agree with the ruling you can find the argument here.....
- Anonymous10 years ago
Amusingly, you're the ignorant one.
The net neutrality lawsuit that started this whole debate was the FCC trying to get it's hands on the internet. It was the government dictating to the public what has to happen.
Once again, your kind refuses to think beyond what Obama tells you.